BHB on Undercurrent

[scubadada]

Here is a video from ABC News 'No Fishing' Signs at Blue Heron Bridge (yahoo.com)

And a short article from Fox Fishing and diving struggling to co-exist at Blue Heron Bridge (msn.com)

So, I wonder how and why the no fishing signs got placed in the first place by Florida Dept of Transportation, makes me think it was a roadway issue.

 

[uncfnp]

As I indicated previously, I was unaware that the calls for banning fishing were pertaining only to the little bridge and not for the fishing pier itself.

I know that hundreds if not thousands of divers dive under the dedicated fishing pier when fisherman are present each year. As far as I know there is no explicit rule that excludes divers from this area.

So it is difficult for me to understand why there are apparently no problems or conflicts with the fisherman and divers at the pier (or at least none that the people on this thread are discussion) but ALL the "problems" are confined entirely to the little bridge for the Blue Heron BLVD. Is my observation/conclusion mistaken?

If I am correct, then why would all the "bad" fisherman be entirely limited to the bridge and not the pier?

If fishing is entirely incompatible with divers, then does it make sense to rope off a significant buffer area all around the fishing pier and issue divers huge fines that transgress these boundaries? Does that sort of give and take in adjusting the existing rights of divers and fishermen make sense if the two activities are "oil and water" and any sort of "overlap in utilization" presents a clear and significant threat to the public's safety?

Good questions and I can only answer for myself.

I don’t know that “bad” fishermen are restricted to the old bridge section but certainly anyone that dives beneath a fishing pier will get less sympathy when hooked, accident or otherwise, than when diving at a multi-use state bridge, even if said bridge is open for fishing.

We rarely dive the dedicated fishing pier and if we do we know and accept the risk. Perhaps that can be the compromise. Divers stay away from the park fishing pier, leaving the fish to the fisherman. And let divers dive the small section of bridge.

 

[tekkydiver]

Please remember that the License fees paid by fisherman pay for countless conservation projects. Fisherman also pay an excise tax on all fishing tackle. Take a look at the Wallop-Breaux and Dingle Johnson act. Maybe it's about time we divers pay for a license to help finance the care of the resourse. Perhaps a Scuba Stamp could be added to the Florida fishing license.

 

[tekkydiver]

Also keep in mind Florida Law 379.105 pertaining harassment of people fishing. FWC will back up the fishers.

 

[tursiops]

Also keep in mind Florida Law 379.105 pertaining harassment of people fishing. FWC will back up the fishers.

Do you really think the divers are intentionally interfering with the fishing?

(1) A person may not intentionally, within or on any public lands or publicly or privately owned wildlife management and fish management areas, or in or on any public waters:
(a) Interfere with or attempt to prevent the lawful taking of fish, game, or nongame animals by another within or on such lands or areas, or in or on such waters.
(b) Attempt to disturb fish, game, or nongame animals or attempt to affect their behavior with the intent to prevent their lawful taking by another within or on such lands or areas, or in or on such waters.​

 

[Divin'Papaw]

Here is a video from ABC News 'No Fishing' Signs at Blue Heron Bridge (yahoo.com)

And a short article from Fox Fishing and diving struggling to co-exist at Blue Heron Bridge (msn.com)

So, I wonder how and why the no fishing signs got placed in the first place by Florida Dept of Transportation, makes me think it was a roadway issue.

That makes the most sense to me. Given that there is a large, dedicated fishing pier the FDOT may have decided that fishing on the east span was an unacceptable risk to transportation and to the safety of the fishermen. My guess is that it had absolutely nothing to do with divers.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Also keep in mind Florida Law 379.105 pertaining harassment of people fishing. FWC will back up the fishers.

Okay, I'll bite.


379.105 Harassment of hunters, trappers, or fishers.—
(1) A person may not intentionally, within a publicly or privately owned wildlife management or fish management area or on any state-owned water body:
(a) Interfere with or attempt to prevent the lawful taking of fish, game, or nongame animals by another.
(b) Attempt to disturb fish, game, or nongame animals or attempt to affect their behavior with the intent to prevent their lawful taking by another.
(2) Any person who violates this section commits a Level Two violation under s. 379.401.

How is looking at fish, taking pictures of fish, etc., "harassing fishers"? (there is one response I expect, just waiting)

 

[Pipehorse]

Given that there is a large, dedicated fishing pier the FDOT may have decided that fishing on the east span was an unacceptable risk to transportation and to the safety of the fishermen.

I am unsure of how FDOT makes these kind of decisions, but I should think that there would be some kind of documentation to support the decision. Wouldn't the documentation be a matter of public record? Wouldn't the FDOT have given the supporting documentation to Dr. Botel when she contacted them about why the signs went up in the first place? Perhaps the signs went up without the proper documentation, and that was the reason the signs were removed in such a rapid manner?

 

[Pipehorse]

Do you really think the divers are intentionally interfering with the fishing?

Intentional interference is highly unlikely. Unintentional interference is extremely likely, if not guaranteed.

 

[tursiops]

Intentional interference is highly unlikely. Unintentional interference is extremely likely, if not guaranteed.

Thanks for your input. The question was not directed at you.